...AS Level History Russia 1855 – 1917 Alternative F Revision Guide Contents 1. Alexander II 2. Alexander III 3. Nicholas II 4. Stability of the Tsarist Regime 1905 - 14 5. Political Opposition 6. February / March Revolution 1917 7. October Revolution 1917 Tsar Alexander II To what extent does Tsar Alexander II deserve to be viewed as the Tsar Liberator? Think BALANCE!! Alexander II 1855-81 ▪ Came to the throne during the Crimean War (1855) ▪ Initiated a wide range of reforms (social, economic, administrative and legal) ▪ Earned the title ‘Liberator’ for giving freedom to the peasants BUT did not wish to share political power ▪ Assassinated by the People’s Will in 1881 Answering the key question |Introduction |Use this chart to answer any question on Alex II | | |All questions (whether relating to ‘Liberator’ or not) will require BALANCE | | |Precision of knowledge – “Detail is King!” | | |Yes |No | |Emancipation |Emancipation Committees set up |Redemption Payments...
Words: 7115 - Pages: 29
...Nicholas II was a good man, undeniably unsuited to his role as Tsar in Russia’s turbulent times; Nicholas is a great, tragic figure of history. In a different situation Nicholas would have flourished as a family man but he was born as the Emperor and autocrat of Russia he was given the impossible job of maintaining the Empire during its final years. Throughout his reign as Tsar Nicholas struggled to cope with the task of ruling the empire and the system depended completely him. The fundamental laws of the empire describe the Emperor as: “an autocratic and unlimited monarch. God himself commands that his supreme power be obeyed, out of conscience as well as fear” and this was never going to be Nicholas. ‘Had circumstances and his own inclinations been different, he might have saved his dynasty by moving away from autocratic rule towards a constitutional regime during the first decade of his reign.’ Nicholas had the idea temperament for a constitutional monarch but circumstance would prevent him from moving towards constitutional rule. He ineptly handled reform after the 1905 revolution. He decreed civil rights and democratic representation in the October Manifesto, but afterwards he actively worked to limit these liberties to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown. I struggle to blame Nicholas for protecting his institution, in hindsight it is easy to say what Nicholas should have done, but in reality implementing any kind of constitutional monarchy would have been impossible...
Words: 550 - Pages: 3
...To what extent was the Tsarist economy transformed between 1881 – 1905? The torpor of the Russian economy compared to other European Great Powers was a prominent predicament to both Alexander III and Nicholas II. In order to sustain Russia’s Great Power status, both Tsars engaged in a policy of economic renewal between the years 1881 and 1095. Despite success in managing to proliferate economic growth rates, the attempts of economic reform between 1881 and 1905 weren’t sufficient in order to make Russia’s economy strong enough to fully maintain Russia’s ‘Great Power’ status as Russia still lagged behind the other Great Powers come 1905. (92) The main quandary facing the Russian economy was its lack of industrial capacity and both Alexander III and Nicholas II endeavoured to invigorate Russia’s industrial competence through a policy of State Capitalism. Witte played a main role in attempting to overcome this vast hindrance. One of Witte’s main policies was to acquire capital to invest in the industry of which he executed through foreign loans and heavy taxes; through this Witte succeeded in creating the centrepiece of his system – the Trans-Siberian railway. This in turn would provide the communication system essential to exploit the economic potential of Russia by allowing the export of raw materials. Witte also had economic success with raw materials. Coal and oil increased by 150% and iron by 200%. With the accomplishment of the railway and the increase in raw materials...
Words: 765 - Pages: 4
...Russian system, yes some of it was quite cruel and hard on the Russians but the Russians must have a ruler that is hard and is a stiff upper lipped person and is a powerfull ruler, every leader of Russia has been a hard and powerful one so I do agree that violence and repression were key factors in his role to rule Russia. Alexander III came to power very unexpectedly due to the assassination of members of the terrorist organization Narodnaya Volya. He was only 36 when his father died and he came to power He was very aware and under no illusion that he could suffer the exact same fate as his father did, because he was so aware of this he put in place many forms of repression These were labelled ‘Russification’ and they came into being immediately he was crowned tsar in 1881. The primary aspect of Russification was to rid Russia of western ideas that Alexander III believed had weakened the country and reduced its national identity. Alexander wanted to reclaim Russia’s ‘Russian-ness'. To achieve this he had to remove those people who had imported into Russia alien ideas that were covertly undermining his position and the national identity of Russia itself. Alexander saw no difference in what he wanted for himself and what he wanted for Russia. Russification was not new to Russia. There had been isolated examples of when this was done before. What made Alexander’s policy so different was the intensity of it after 1881 and the attempt to give it some form of academic intellectual backing...
Words: 2019 - Pages: 9
...also backward as there was no legal political parties nor was there any centrally elected government Russia at this time was under tsarist rule by Nicholas II of the Romanov empire. Nicholas II was brought up by his father Alexander III who didn't believe that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything and therefore did not educate him in the business of state . The fact that his father who died at age 49 thought that he had many more years ahead of him may also be another factor behind Nicholas' poor leadership of Russia . Alexander who died in 1894 had left Russia with a society no longer controlled by tsarist rule and when Nicholas took the throne after his father's death Russian society was not prepared to turn on it's heels and return to how it use to be . Nicholas II was 26 when his father died and was soon to marry the German princess, Alix of Hess, Granddaughter of Queen Victoria . The relationship between Alexandra and Nicholas was a 'critical relationship at a turning point in history' . He was weak and indecisive but he wasn't an imbecile, Alexandra, if not an imbecile was politically and socially illiterate, dominating him and towards the end of their lives forced him to make chaotic decisions. Nicholas nor Alexander III were well trained for the job of ruling this vast country....
Words: 1327 - Pages: 6
...response, Tsar Alexander II passed a series of reforms, which were intended to liberalize Russian society. They included the abolition of serfdom, the modernization of the government, the opening of universities to people of all socioeconomic classes, the granting of semi-autonomy to the Russian territory of Poland, and the relaxation of some laws that were punitive to various religious groups (Burleigh 27). While these reforms had good intentions they failed to have the intended effects. The educational reforms did allow more people to be admitted to universities, but they did little to change life conditions for these new people. For example, women left universities with no new societal roles in which they could utilize their education. In addition, educated people of lower classes had few employment opportunities available for them upon graduation (Alexander and His Times). The tough situation for the newly accepted students caused students to rise up and take control of their professors (Burleigh 28). The emancipation of the serfs was also not entirely successful. This is because it left awkward agreements between former serfs and landlords that forced serfs to reimburse their former masters for the financial loss of losing them as unpaid workers. These agreements caused tension and some unrest in rural areas. Even in Poland, the limited self-rule that was granted to them failed because it caused many Polish people to demand full independence (Alexander and His Times)...
Words: 1888 - Pages: 8
...COMPARATIVE ESSAY BETWEEN ALEXANDER II AND III Tsar Alexander II and III while father and son had very different ambitions as Tsar and different view for the future of the empire. Alexander III succeeded to his father’s throne in 1894. His reign is looked upon by most historians as a time of repression that saw the undoing of many of the reforms carried out by his father. Certainly that was a time of great economic and social change but these had led, in the West of the nation, great pressure on political system. However Alexander was deeply suspicious of the direction in which his father had taken Russia and the internal reforms that he instituted were designed to correct what he saw as the too-liberal tendencies of his father's reign. In fact his first task was to review a proposal, approved by his father in 1881, called ‘constitution’, that would have appointed committees to discuss legislation and the administration of the country. Therefore Tsar Alexander II and III where at their very different since we can see that Alexander II made a lot of changes in areas like serfdom, civil rights, justice and law, education, popular representation, national rights and dissent. On the other hand, with reference to national rights, the two Tsars were at their most similar. In fact the both firmly believed that the Tsar autocratic structure must remain untouchable. However When Tsar Alexander the II came to the throne in 1855 the desire of reform was widespread. Tsar Alexander II gave to the...
Words: 1557 - Pages: 7
...How successful was the regime in overcoming the opposition to the regime? Opposition was slowly growing within the Tsars Empire and Alexander II felt threatened and took action that in fact reversed some of his reforms. He was very disgruntled that people were actually going against him, as he considered himself to have done so much for them, the biggest being emancipation. What he did not realise was this made people greedy and gave them a taste for freedom, and gave many the incentive to spur on for further reform. Due to this, he went back on his words and tightened up many reforms in an attempt to clamp down on those who opposed him, succeeding in the process. The most important measure to overcome growing opposition was tightening up the education reforms he had made. Alexander II saw that student radicals were emerging many were associated with populism. As a result he increased university fees, making it extremely difficult for peasants to receive a higher education. Also, while before he in the past he had given universities the control to appoint professors, Alexander II changed this and instead gave Tolstoy more control over this and Tolstoy made sure to choose the more reserved professors. The Zemstvos powers over schools reduced and churches reasserted control over rural schools, resulting in an education being more centred around religion, as it had been in the past. The tsar discouraged history, literature and modern languages as he felt these encouraged critical...
Words: 762 - Pages: 4
...Nicholas II and Alexandra were the last tsar and tsaress of the Russian Empire under Romanov rule. They ruled from 1894 to 1917, during WWI. Their early life, reign, and startlingly execution greatly shaped Russian history. Nicholas and Alexandra’s lives, before Nicholas’s inheritance of the Russian throne, determined the way they viewed an empire should be governed. It began in 1881, when Nicholas’s grandfather, Alexander II, was assassinated. Alexander III, Nicholas’s father, became the emperor of Russia while he, at the mere age of thirteen, became heir. Alexander III, furious with his father’s murder, led Russia in an autocratic government. Though he was an intimidating figure, Alexander was a strong and capable leader. While his father...
Words: 361 - Pages: 2
...Alexander III, Tsar of Russia, 1881-1889 Alexander III of Russia was born on 26th February 1845. Clumsy and gruff as a child, he grew up to be a man of great physical strength. Everything about him suggested imperial power. He was six feet four inches tall, broad and very strong. Stories circulated about Tsar Alexander bending (and then restraightening) iron fire pokers, crushing silver roubles in his fingers, and tearing packs of cards in half for the entertainment of his children, and about the occasion in 1888 when, after the imperial train was derailed by terrorists at Borki, he held up the wrecked carriage’s roof on his shoulders while his family escaped. (It seems that Alexander’s kidney disease dated back to this incident.) The first tsar to wear a full beard since the time of Peter the Great, whose Europeanising reforms changed fashions to such an extent that untrimmed facial hair had become a sign of a lack of western sophistication, Alexander suited the imperial Russian stereotype. He could be rude and blunt in conversation, and was terrifying when angry. He used foul language when frustrated and senior officials were intimidated by him, though they felt secure when working for him, partly because they were confident of his personal support and partly because Alexander’s physical and personal strength heightened the sense of autocratic might surrounding him. Alexander was the second son of Tsar Alexander II, and as such was not provided with the education necessary...
Words: 789 - Pages: 4
...what extent does Alexander III deserve the title “reactionary”? Although Alexander III enacted some social and economic reforms, most importantly those of industry, he did more to repress the people, strengthen autocracy, and remove the more liberal reforms of his father, so it would be fair to say that Alexander III was a reactionary. This was because fundamentally he was a believer in autocracy and nationality, and so only would only accept reforms that would strengthen these ideals, was necessary to keep up with other countries, or was neutral. So this hindered the social reform and progress, which was clearly wanted by some parts of the population, leading to him being defined as a reactionary. One way, in which it can be seen that Alexander II was a reactionary, was through his policy of Russification. This was a policy that was designed to unite the very diverse Russian empire into a uniform nation, in which everyone could define himself or herself as Russian and would therefore rally behind his ‘great Russian’ administration. This was however implemented forcefully. It involved harassing and repressing minorities such as Poles, Finns and Jews, forcing them to learn Russian by having all official paperwork printed in Russian and even expelling students who spoke their local language in school. This was reactionary behavior, because it stopped minorities creating their own national identities and trying to become politically independent, so here Alexander was clearly trying...
Words: 1085 - Pages: 5
...Assess the role of Tsar Nicholas II in the decline and fall of the Romanov Dynasty Tsar Nicholas had a primary role in the decline and downfall of the Romanov Dynasty. Although he was involved, and may even be said to be fundamentally responsible, there are also factors that were out of his control that contributed towards the decline and fall of the Romanov Dynasty. Tsar Nicholas II contributed through the Russo-Japanese war, World War I and through his own personal skills, qualities and beliefs. However, the development of society as well as the Geography of Russia and Alexis Haemophilia also went towards to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty. The decline and fall of the Romanov Dynasty occurred due to numerous factors, of which Tsar Nicholas...
Words: 356 - Pages: 2
...to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land. “And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.” I still believe that we shall overcome. Martin Luther King Jr. stated these powerful words in his acceptance speech after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on December 10, 1964. Martin Luther King Jr. had visions of the world coming together and pushing away all selfishness. Much like King Jr., a very innovative man named Will Allen also has these high hopes for the future. Allan is an urban farmer who is boldly transforming the cultivation, production as well as delivery of healthy foods to underserved populations. Allen’s father is a sharecropper, so he may have had this culturally efficient idea from a young age watching his father in the fields. Allen is recognized as a national leader in urban agriculture and food policy. After a brief career in professional basketball, he returned to his roots as a long time farmer using his retirement package a plot of inner-city land with greenhouses, where he established...
Words: 505 - Pages: 3
...A Nation of Diversity Despite the fact that America is a diverse nation, the existence of racial intolerance is evident. People are empowered to overcome such situation but some choose not to. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy” (King 46). Another Civil Rights leader, César Chávez, once said “Preservation of one’s own culture does not require contempt or disrespect for other cultures” (Cashill 234). In the film of producer Paul Haggis, Crash shows different characters, with different lifestyles, and different socioeconomic statuses and how they collide with one another. Crash, written and directed by Paul Haggis, is a 2004 film about how in Los Angeles, during a two day period, people of a multi-ethnic background will track the unpredictable intersections and struggle to defeat their fears as they interweave in and out of each other’s lives. It depicts how African-American, Caucasians, Hispanics, and Asians collide in different times throughout the film. It differs from other films and has an impartial approach to the issue about racism. Rather than splitting the characters between offenders and victims only, the cast is shown as themselves being racists in diverse circumstances and conditions. Paul Haggis wrote this film after a life experience of his own – one night, coming home from an evening out with his wife...
Words: 724 - Pages: 3
...Speech Analysis: MLK After watching Martin Luther King’s speech, several things jumped out to me. At the beginning of his speech, I noticed that he did not talk fast but he started somewhat slow; as he progressed through the speech, he talked a little bit faster and maintained that pace. Throughout the entire speech, he remained confident; he talked with a booming voice, and his pronunciation was clear with every word since he never muttered. His posture was “strong” since he did not move around too much and looked at the audience very often instead of staring down at his script. Another thing that I noticed in his speech was that he was very repetitive which was effective, because people remembered what he said; two examples that was used often were “I have a dream…” and “Let freedom ring…” which are very popular in his speech. He used a couple of quotes that people recognized, one of them being from a song called “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” which even children knew. In his speech, there were some pauses in between sentences, and I believe that he was doing that to let him gather his thoughts to prepare for what he was going to say next and also allow the audience some time to think about what he was saying. After half his speech, I noticed that he had stopped reading off of his script. This displayed how well prepared he was before his speech since he knew his information. In conclusion, he was well prepared before the speech, confident, maintained a good speaking pace, and...
Words: 275 - Pages: 2
